A procuring agency properly considered the past performance of a joint venture’s two partners, even though the solicitation prohibited the consideration of subcontractors’ past performance.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that where a solicitation only allowed past performance references for the “prime offeror,” the agency was permitted to consider the past performance of two joint venture partners–the entities comprising a “prime offeror.”
I am back in Lawrence after a trip to the Lone Star State, where I spoke at the Fort Bliss Regional Contracting Industry Day. My presentation, “The Legal Benefits and Pitfalls of Teaming Arrangements” focused on the upsides and potential drawbacks of teaming and joint venturing on federal set-aside contracts.
A big “thank you” to Joe Conway and the team at the El Paso Community College Contract Opportunities Center for hosting this outstanding event. And of course, extra thanks to all the government employees, large businesses, and small business owners who attended.
If you weren’t able to make it to the Fort Bliss Regional Contracting Industry Day, you don’t have to be left out. Just contact me and I would be happy to provide you with a copy of the presentation.
A contractor’s alleged breach of its teaming agreement did not provide a basis for the agency to conclude that a Procurement Integrity Act violation had occurred.
According to a recent GAO bid protest decision, even if a teammate misuse voluntarily provided confidential information, the misuse does not violate the Procurement Integrity Act. Moreover, the GAO considers an allegation regarding the breach of a teaming agreement to be a private dispute, falling outside of the GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction.
I am back in the Midwest after a trip to sunny Southern California, where I spoke at the 10th Annual Veteran Economic & Business Development Summit in Riverside. My presentation, “Joint Ventures vs. Prime/Sub Teaming” covered the key legal distinctions between joint ventures and prime/sub teams, with a special focus on the SDVOSB joint venture rules.
A big “thank you” to Julie Padilla, Scott Rice, and the rest of the team from the Riverside Community College District Procurement Assistance Center, who put together an outstanding event. And of course, extra thanks to the veterans and small business owners who attended (and asked some great questions).
If you were not able to make it to last Friday’s event, you don’t have to be left out. Just contact me and I would be happy to provide you with a copy of my slides.
In today’s segment of our BlogTalk radio show, Position to Win, Guy Timberlake, Larry Allen and I discuss:
Tune in to Position to Win every two weeks for more insights, commentary, and wisecracks.
SBA 8(a) participants need not obtain the SBA’s prior approval of prime/subcontractor teaming agreements, according to an SBA statement made in a GAO bid protest case.
The SBA’s position makes sense, because the SBA’s regulations only call for prior approval of joint venture agreements. However, one former 8(a) company might be hopping mad over the SBA’s stated position, because that company was terminated from the 8(a) program for–you guessed it–failing to obtain the SBA’s prior approval of a teaming agreement.
Do you want to know more about joint ventures and teaming agreements? Do you want to spend a Friday in November enjoying the warmth of sunny Southern California?
If you answered “yes,” I am pleased to announce that I will be presenting a seminar on “Joint Ventures vs. Teaming Agreements” on November 8, 2013 in Riverside, California. The seminar will offer a “bird’s eye” overview of the key differences between joint ventures and teaming agreements. Attendees will learn “do’s” and “don’ts” when setting up a joint venture or team, common pitfalls, and strategies for success.
The seminar is part of the 10th Annual Veterans Economic and Business Summit. For more information, contact the Riverside Community College District Procurement Assistance Center. Hope to see you there!